Post on 14-Jan-2016
Israel’s National Security Doctrine
Limmud Conference
The Strategy of Strategic Surprise
Situational Strategic
In order to deal with these situations, one needs to undergo fundamental learning / change one’s personal perception (Mindset)
Irrelevant 'interpretive conceptual system' in
terms of understanding the individual relative to
his environment
An event in which information was
lacking, the information didn’t arrive in time or wasn’t properly
analyzed
The Process of Strategic Surprise
Stage 1: Relevancy
Stage 2: Incubation
Stage 3: Denial
Stage 4: Fundamental
Learning
Strategic
Surprise
Relevancy Gap
Strategic
Surprise
Strategic
Surprise
Copying without translating
Difference that makes the difference
New trend in the neighborhood?
Situational (Technical) response to
Fundamental (Adaptive) Problem
Change in priorities and
values
Complex Challenges
Volatile Environment
Need for Substantive Broad Long Term View
Short, Unstable Tenures
Fragmentation of Knesset and Government
Incentive for Short Term Thinking
Address for Decision Makers Model to Emulate
Training Future Strategists
The Israeli Context
Strategic Surprise in Israel’s National Security
Strategic
Surprise
Relevancy Gap
Strategic
Surprise
Strategic
Surprise
הזירה המרכזית: צבאית
האיום הקיומי הוא פיזי
צה"ל הגורם העיקרי
Stage 1: Relevancy
Stage 2: Incubation
Stage 3: Denial
Time
Org
an
izin
g
log
ic
1947 2000~1933 1939
Political-diplomatic arena
Military-security arena
1960 1970 1980 1990
It doesn’t matter what the goyim say. It matters what the Jews do
(Ben Gurion)
Legitimacy for Jewish homeland
Facilitating Jewish Aliya
Pol Dip ChallengeLondon
ConferenceWhite Paper 1939
Partition Plan: Arabs threaten to
invade
Ben Gurion’s Seminar
Israel’s National Security Mindset
Sec. Doctrine: IL win war
Military vs. Security Activism
Alliance with Superpower (France / US)
Alliance of Periphery
1960 1970 1980 1990
rele
van
cy
Israel’s Traditional Security Doctrine
List of Threats
Conventional: Army
Terror / Guerilla
Main Working Assumptions
Nuclear
Main Arena: Military Security
Existential Threat: Physical
IDF protect the nation
Decisive Victory
Over enemy
Early Warning
To prepare forces
Deterrence
So enemy won’t initiate war
Time
Quick Decisive Victory
Large Army relative
to population
Home-Front Role Secondary
Force planning: Tanks and Planes
Strategic Early Warning
Ambiguous Nuclear Policy
Closeness to Superpower
Striving for short wars
Keeping strong army w/o economic collapse
Army responsible for home front
High quality intelligence agencies
Special relations with USA
Taking war onto enemy’s territory
Controlling territory main leverage
Creating an Iron Wall
Updates to Israel’s Security Doctrine
Meridor Commission: Defence
Low intensity conflict The Dahiya Doctrine
Guiding Assumptions of Nat Sec unchanged
Arena: Military
IDF responsible
Divergent Reality: The Resistance Network
Existential Threat Military
Main Arena: Security Deterrence, Early Warning, Decisive
Victory
IDF responsible for protecting nation
Nasrallah: “We do not need tanks and planes…
[Israel] is weaker than a spider
web.” (7/31/06)
Abu Mussa Marzouk:
“failure of the political process will bring about
the destruction of Israel (5/15/07)
New non conventional tactics required.
Home Front + Diplomatic also essential
Synchronized Victories:Need strong foreign affairs
establishment
Resistance Network focuses on soft underbelly – asymmetric warfare,
international arena and home front
Base: Middle East
Main Strategy: Undermine 2SS / ‘Logic of Implosion’Main Tactics: Asymmetrical Warfare, ‘overstretch’
Characteristics: Islamist (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah)
Military Superiority
Divergent Reality: Strategic A-Symmetry
Flat network based structure Hierarchical top-down structure
Permanent ResistanceFinality of claims / Peace
Low intensity / Attrition / ImplosionHigh intensity / Victory
Attack civilians / Human shieldsNo civilian casualties
IL Arabs = Strategic leverageIL Arabs = domestic issue
Battleground: Home front & intl. arena
Battleground: Military field
Control over PL = Strategic AssetControl over PL = Military Necessity
Authority w/o responsibilityAuthority with responsibility
Divergent Reality: Delegitimization Network
Base: Europe & North America
Main Strategy: Promote 1SS / turn IL into pariah state Main Tactics: BDS, lawfare, apartheid parallels
Characteristics: Red-Green Alliance, global spread, focused around hubs & catalysts
The key: Blur difference between delegitimizers &
critics
Coercion only way: BDS
EssentialismLiberalising the arguments
Demonization: IL= apartheid
Double standards / singling out
Lawfare
Red GreenLiberal Elite:
From Kibbutz to Kibbush
The Feedback Loop
Resistance NetworkDelegitimization Network
Undermine2SS
Advance 1SS narrative
Implosion threat Fundamental Delegit
Flotilla planned for 16 months in countries friendly to IL
Hamas drew upon Europe-based Muslim Brotherhood network
The Flotilla represents an evolved stage in the two networks’
coordination
Crisis in Israel’s National Security
Main Problem: Hasbara / Policy
Commitment to peace & HR vital – but there will always be an outstanding issue (Shebaa Farms Syndrome): Hasbara important but delegitimization is ideology driven
Increasing threat from Liberal Progressive Elite
Israel’s position vis-à-vis Western Govts remains
stable
New dynamic – new threat (advancing 1SS)
Attacks on Israel are nothing new
Creation of Existential Political Threat
Danger: Turning Into Pariah State
Demonization
De-Legitimacy
3rd World Pact
Change in Balance of Power
US: Asset to Liability?
Bottom Up Processes
Intl Inversion towards 2SS